• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

21st Century Racism Is Thriving In American Academe

Should an applicants race be a deciding factor for admission to a university?

  • Total voters
    68
  • Poll closed .
Blackdog said:
Don't have to, it is any online dictionary or law dictionary. Google is your friend. You don't even have to search hard, just put in affirmative action and the definitions pop right up. :lol:

And no, you gave no link to anything.
Click to expand...

So, you don't want me to examine it? I understand. :coffeepap
 
The term itself refers to both mandatory and voluntary programs intended to affirm the civil rights of designated classes of individuals by taking positive action to protect them from, in the words of Justice william j. brennan jr., "the lingering effects of pervasive discrimination" (Local 28 of the Sheet Metal Workers' Int'l Assoc.v. EEOC, 478 U.S. 421, 106 S. Ct. 3019, 92 L. Ed. 2d 344 [1986]). A law school, for example, might voluntarily take affirmative action to find and admit qualified students of color. An employer might recruit qualified women where only men have worked before, such as businesses that operate heavy equipment.

(snip)

On June 23, 2003, the Court ruled 6-3 against the under graduate policy because it made each candidate's race the "deciding" factor but uphead 5-4 the law school's process because a compelling state interest exists for universities to create racially diverse campuses.
affirmative action legal definition of affirmative action. affirmative action synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

Now one that mirrors yours but goes on to further state:

A common principle is that whether for admissions or employment, affirmative action programs such as targeted recruitment and goals are encouraged to remedy past effects of discrimination; quotas are disfavored. Affirmative action in American employment law has evolved through a series of governmental proclamations, court decrees, and voluntary programs instigated by employers in the private sector. Private employers who receive no public funding are not required to adopt affirmative action policies. Affirmative action policies are enforced by the entities adopting them if they are voluntary, while affirmative action policies required by government mandates can be enforced through the legal system. (through the legal system means once a business is found to have seriously discrminated in the past)

Affirmative Action Law & Legal Definition



 
Boo Radley said:
The term itself refers to both mandatory and voluntary programs intended to affirm the civil rights of designated classes of individuals by taking positive action to protect them from, in the words of Justice william j. brennan jr., "the lingering effects of pervasive discrimination" (Local 28 of the Sheet Metal Workers' Int'l Assoc.v. EEOC, 478 U.S. 421, 106 S. Ct. 3019, 92 L. Ed. 2d 344 [1986]). A law school, for example, might voluntarily take affirmative action to find and admit qualified students of color. An employer might recruit qualified women where only men have worked before, such as businesses that operate heavy equipment.

(snip)

On June 23, 2003, the Court ruled 6-3 against the under graduate policy because it made each candidate's race the "deciding" factor but uphead 5-4 the law school's process because a compelling state interest exists for universities to create racially diverse campuses.
affirmative action legal definition of affirmative action. affirmative action synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

Now one that mirrors yours but goes on to further state:

A common principle is that whether for admissions or employment, affirmative action programs such as targeted recruitment and goals are encouraged to remedy past effects of discrimination; quotas are disfavored. Affirmative action in American employment law has evolved through a series of governmental proclamations, court decrees, and voluntary programs instigated by employers in the private sector. Private employers who receive no public funding are not required to adopt affirmative action policies. Affirmative action policies are enforced by the entities adopting them if they are voluntary, while affirmative action policies required by government mandates can be enforced through the legal system. (through the legal system means once a business is found to have seriously discrminated in the past)

Affirmative Action Law & Legal Definition
Click to expand...

And this changes nothing. You were and still are wrong, get over it and move on. No mysterious only "AA" law exists that you are supposedly arguing. By definition it is exactly what we have been saying it is except for you. I can literally post hundreds from the dictionary's and law dictionary's that say you are full of it.

Keep trying to attack the source and not the argument. I don't really mind at this point as we can see you are scrambling etc.
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
to find and admit qualified students of color.
Click to expand...

That is one form of AA, the mildest one. You go out and search really hard to find enough black kids who are just as qualified as the white ones, without having to lower your standards. And that's awesome. But it's not the same thing as using face as a factor in admissions.
 
Boo Radley said:
Not using it as a deciding factor. That is how it is possible. By and large, the smae whites who were getting in are still getting in.
Click to expand...

Unless you're expanding the total number of slots available, that's not mathematically possible. Unless, of course, the black kids also would have gotten in anyway. Which means you're not actually using race as a factor.
 
Boo Radley said:
Because you say so? Did you read my links?
Click to expand...

Yes and they ALL say that race is a factor. They also say nothing about an AA law that exists. It is a series of programs and initiatives made to "prioritize the inclusion of minority groups in the employment, education and government sectors, among others" and "gives special rights of hiring or advancement to ethnic minorities to make up for past discrimination against that minority."

Even two of your own links (that have a link) include those lines. This is what I and others have been saying the whole time. We also said it was causing other problems as well but you kept saying "it's not AA" and in fact we find out it is.

Again...

The End.
 
misterman said:
Unless you're expanding the total number of slots available, that's not mathematically possible. Unless, of course, the black kids also would have gotten in anyway. Which means you're not actually using race as a factor.
Click to expand...

Well, there has been some of that, expanding slots available. If you check, you will see schools have grown and increased slots.

And yes, they likely would have gotten in anyway as they ahd to be qualified before they could even be considered. And as race cannot be the deciding factor, it really isn't counting for much.

These polices have been driven by schools and not the law or government. Schools want diverity. But, the law has consitintly said they cannot use race as a deciding factor. They cannot set aside seats. they cannot have a quota. and they cannot give so many points based on race that it becomes the deciding factor. Again and again the courts have ruled agianst schools who place an unfair advantage to minorities.

The law is mostly for those places that had a history of discrimination, and the courts can involve themselves in such a proven case, and mandate that qualified minorities be hired. otherwise, most of it is voluntary efforts, not legally mandated efforts, and they must stay within the law of not discrminating. Failure to do so results in losing in court.

No one, other than rich folk like Bush, are getting into prestigous colleges with a "c" average. Minorities are getting there with qualifying grades and SAT scores. After that, everything is subjective.
 
Blackdog said:
Yes and they ALL say that race is a factor. They also say nothing about an AA law that exists. It is a series of programs and initiatives made to "prioritize the inclusion of minority groups in the employment, education and government sectors, among others" and "gives special rights of hiring or advancement to ethnic minorities to make up for past discrimination against that minority."

Even two of your own links (that have a link) include those lines. This is what I and others have been saying the whole time. We also said it was causing other problems as well but you kept saying "it's not AA" and in fact we find out it is.

Again...

The End.
Click to expand...

No, that is not what they said. They said there were voluntary efforts, no legally mandated ones. And that quotas, set asides, and points that made race the deciding factor could not be used. I highlighted those for you. Nothing mandates by law that anyone be accepted or hire who isn't qualified.
 
Boo Radley said:
And yes, they likely would have gotten in anyway as they ahd to be qualified before they could even be considered. And as race cannot be the deciding factor, it really isn't counting for much.
Click to expand...

But it still counts for something.

These polices have been driven by schools and not the law or government. Schools want diverity. But, the law has consitintly said they cannot use race as a deciding factor. They cannot set aside seats. they cannot have a quota. and they cannot give so many points based on race that it becomes the deciding factor. Again and again the courts have ruled agianst schools who place an unfair advantage to minorities.
Click to expand...

Yet there's still some wiggle room left, huh?
 
Boo Radley said:
They said there were voluntary efforts, no legally mandated ones.
Click to expand...

Not relevant.

And that quotas, set asides, and points that made race the deciding factor could not be used.
Click to expand...

But still, a factor.

Nothing mandates by law that anyone be accepted or hire who isn't qualified.
Click to expand...

Your problem is that you claim that there's this single level where you're either "qualified" or "unqualified." But that's crap, because you're still making admission decisions after that by considering further factors, since you still need to whittle people down. "Qualified" means making the first round, otherwise you'd let them all in.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, that is not what they said. They said there were voluntary efforts, no legally mandated ones. And that quotas, set asides, and points that made race the deciding factor could not be used. I highlighted those for you. Nothing mandates by law that anyone be accepted or hire who isn't qualified.
Click to expand...

I give up. I don't know if you are just that convinced race is not being used as a qualifier despite everything, or you just don't want to be wrong. Either way I am bored now, lol.

I will just agree to disagree and leave it at that.
 
misterman said:
Not relevant.



But still, a factor.



Your problem is that you claim that there's this single level where you're either "qualified" or "unqualified." But that's crap, because you're still making admission decisions after that by considering further factors, since you still need to whittle people down. "Qualified" means making the first round, otherwise you'd let them all in.
Click to expand...

relevent.

Not a deciding factor.

And not what I'm arguing at all. School set the bar. They say, we'll not look at anyone not above this line. Usually between 3.0 and 3.5. They cut everyone below that off and don't even look at their application. That is what I mean by a bulk cut off. Those people don't even get considered.

Now after that, the SAT and ACT are no longer a factor. GPA's mean even less. So, you are left with other, more subjective criteria. The school usually has a list that it looks at, trying to see the entire person, and what they bring to the school. It has little to do with objective criteria like SATs and GPAs.

If the school wants a diverse population, for whatever reason, they tend to seek ways to do that. But it is not mandated by law thet they do. In fact, the law offers more of an obsticle than anything else, by hindering how freely they can go after that diversity. If the use race, they will likely lose in court, and recent rullings show that.
 
Blackdog said:
I give up. I don't know if you are just that convinced race is not being used as a qualifier despite everything, or you just don't want to be wrong. Either way I am bored now, lol.

I will just agree to disagree and leave it at that.
Click to expand...

No. I'm arguing the law isn't the reason. And I showed that.
 
Boo Radley said:
Not a deciding factor.
Click to expand...

That's a non-sensical statement though. Of course it's a factor in the decision. You may mean it's not the only factor, but if it's a factor, that means you use it as part of your decision.

Either someone's race is making a difference in whether they get into a school, or it isn't.
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
No. I'm arguing the law isn't the reason. And I showed that.
Click to expand...

But none of us are talking about the law. We're talking about YOUR school's choices and policies and decisions you are making.
 
Boo Radley said:
No. I'm arguing the law isn't the reason. And I showed that.
Click to expand...

There is no law! It does not exist, I have shown that. I have shown what we are talking about it as a whole. CA has already ditched it and I assume more will coming up.

You are arguing in defense of something by saying " it's the law" or "it's not part of AA" when by definition it is exactly that. you are arguing something that does not exist.
 
Blackdog said:
There is no law! It does not exist, I have shown that.
Click to expand...
I assume he's referring to this U.S. Department of Labor - Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) - Facts on Executive Order 11246 — Affirmative Action. There is also Kennedy's executive order: Executive Order 10925 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The terms "Affirmative Action" and "Equal Opportunity" originated from these orders. Colleges may develop their own methods of obeying these laws. The fact that you would even argue "there is no law" shows that you need to study AA a bit more. In fact, almost every university AA policy statement mentions how there polices exist because they have to follow THE LAW.
 
theplaydrive said:
I assume he's referring to this U.S. Department of Labor - Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) - Facts on Executive Order 11246 — Affirmative Action. There is also Kennedy's executive order: Executive Order 10925 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The terms "Affirmative Action" and "Equal Opportunity" originated from these orders. Colleges may develop their own methods of obeying these laws. The fact that you would even argue "there is no law" shows that you need to study AA a bit more. In fact, almost every university AA policy statement mentions how there polices exist because they have to follow THE LAW.
Click to expand...

AA is not a law, it is a program governed by laws and a sires of executive orders , quite a few of them that overlap. It is not a single "law" that can be argued as Boo put it.

The fact that you are still trying to pass it off as one single entity for the sake of argument (which had little to do with anyone argument no less) shows you still are clueless about what people were talking about.

We are talking about AA as a whole, not just 1 all encompassing law that dos not exist as Boo tried to make it.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
AA is not a law, it is a program governed by laws and a sires of executive orders , quite a few of them that overlap. It is not a single "law" that can be argued as Boo put it.
Click to expand...
You obviously didn't read the post you just responded to because I posted two laws (or executive orders) not one, so it's clear that I don't think it's "a single law". I just posted them to clarify what BR is likely referring to.

The fact that you are still trying to pass it off as one single entity for the sake of argument (which had little to do with anyone argument no less) shows you still are clueless about what people were talking about.
Click to expand...
I'm not trying to pass it off as a single entity. Not only did I post two laws in the post you just quoted and didn't read, in a response to BR, I said:
theplaydrive said:
However, you seem to be using AA to refer only to the law. AA is a term that refers to more than just the law. It also refers to the admissions policies themselves..
Click to expand...

But thanks for calling me clueless in spite of the fact that you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

We are talking about AA as a whole, not just 1 all encompassing law that dos not exist as Boo tried to make it.
Click to expand...
Well, we were talking about AA as a whole, but then YOU starting saying that you didn't think "the law" should exist. BR's point has been that "the law" doesn't require or advocate colleges to do the things that you've been complaining about like "lowering standards" and "discriminating". And he's right.

And finally, while you seem to NOW have a problem with referring to AA as "a law", you didn't have a problem with it before:

Blackdog said:
Just for clarity Boo and play, I do not mean to insult your intelligence or anything like that. I just seriously think it is an antiquated law that partly because of all the controversy around it, needs to go away because it really is no longer needed. It is not the 1950's anymore.
Click to expand...

I find your change of heart suspect. It reminds me of when you told me my response to your question was "an excuse" and then you changed your mind and said that I never even answered it. Interesting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom